getProductInsights

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. No mention of rate limits, caching, or potential error conditions. Insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place. No unnecessary qualifiers or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., whether barcode is needed for insights), pagination behavior, or return format. The examples are helpful but incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by contextualizing the insightType enum with examples like 'detected labels, categories, ingredients issues', which helps the agent understand the type of data returned. This goes beyond the enum labels.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves AI-generated insights about products with specific examples like labels, categories, ingredients issues. It identifies the resource (products) and action (get insights). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar tools like getNutriScore or getEcoScore, which are more specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.